Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of MR-integrated linacs (MR-linac) in clinical radiation oncology applications are becoming more prevalent. However, given the novel and radically different designs of these systems from conventional linacs, current radiation dosimetry protocols for high energy photons are no longer appropriate for use in modern MR-linac systems: First, given the presence of the magnetic field and the linac design, traditional reference conditions defined by previous high energy photon dosimetry protocols cannot be met; Second, the presence of the strong magnetic field can affect the performance of conventional equipment used for dosimetry. In this manuscript, we describe some of the challenges faced in radiation dosimetry in external MR-guided radiotherapy delivery systems, summarize some of the publications in this area, and finally discuss the early work by the American Association of physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 351 which is mandated with producing a protocol for reference dosimetry in MR-linac units.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".